Enchant Improvised Weapons

[Baval]

Chess Pwn wrote:

Baval wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

A vorpal weapon must be a slashing melee weapon. If you roll this special ability randomly for an inappropriate weapon, reroll.

You can't put vorpal on a bludgeoning weapon.

You can put vorpal on an amulet of mighty fists though. It will work on a bite or claw, but not on a slam or hoof. It won't work on an unarmed strike, but it might if you were using boar or tiger style.

And here youre placing a weapon enchant on an amulet, which in turn has magic to spread that enchant to your natural attacks, but is not itself a weapon.

Note, that's not me placing it on an amulet. BUT if it was allowed it's because the AoMF is giving an specific ability that allows it to have weapon enhancements that it gives to your attacks.

You're basically arguing this.

General rule: You need two legs to walk.
Specific ability X: You may use hands to walk instead of feat.
Specific item Y: You may walk with only one leg.

You: Nobody needs two legs to walk, X and Y prove that there is no general rule, they just give it as a nice suggestion.

Actually its closer to

General Rule: You can walk on two legs
Specific ability X: You get a +1 to acrobatics while walking on your hands
Specific Item Y: Your peg leg gives you +3 to dance checks

And im saying you can walk with a peg leg and a real leg, and youre arguing "it specifically says you need TWO legs"

or worse "Just because you have a stick attached to your stump doesnt make it a peg leg unless it was specifically designed to be a peg leg, so no walking"

I agree with your first part though, the amulet has a rule to give your natural attacks weapon enhancements, but youre still enchanting the amulet, not the claws.

[Chess Pwn]

Imbicatus wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

A vorpal weapon must be a slashing melee weapon. If you roll this special ability randomly for an inappropriate weapon, reroll.

You can't put vorpal on a bludgeoning weapon.

You can put vorpal on an amulet of mighty fists though. It will work on a bite or claw, but not on a slam or hoof. It won't work on an unarmed strike, but it might if you were using boar or tiger style.

Vorpal cannot be applied to unarmed attacks so I would say you can't put vorpal on an AoMF.

But Unarmed attacks aren't the purpose of an AoMF, enhancing natural weapons are. That's why Magic Fang is the prerequisite. Natural weapons do slashing damage.

There is no "purpose" of an item. It does what it says. It says it can have weapon abilities that could be applied to US. Vorpal requires slashing which an US is not. Thus Vorpal can't be on a AoMF. If it said it could have weapon abilities that applies to US or any NA then you'd be correct that you could have vorpal since there are NA that do slashing. But that's not what it says.

[Baval]

Chess Pwn wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

A vorpal weapon must be a slashing melee weapon. If you roll this special ability randomly for an inappropriate weapon, reroll.

You can't put vorpal on a bludgeoning weapon.

You can put vorpal on an amulet of mighty fists though. It will work on a bite or claw, but not on a slam or hoof. It won't work on an unarmed strike, but it might if you were using boar or tiger style.

Vorpal cannot be applied to unarmed attacks so I would say you can't put vorpal on an AoMF.

But Unarmed attacks aren't the purpose of an AoMF, enhancing natural weapons are. That's why Magic Fang is the prerequisite. Natural weapons do slashing damage.

There is no "purpose" of an item. It does what it says. It says it can have weapon abilities that could be applied to US. Vorpal requires slashing which an US is not. Thus Vorpal can't be on a AoMF. If it said it could have weapon abilities that applies to US or any NA then you'd be correct that you could have vorpal since there are NA that do slashing. But that's not what it says.

But a Boar Style user DOES have slashing fists, so Vorpal COULD work with his unarmed strikes, so yeah he could have Vorpal.

Also youre hanging on Vorpal so hard when this argument still works with Flaming. You can enchant the Amulet with Flaming. An Amulet is not a weapon, Flaming is a weapon enchantment. Therefore you can weapon enchant anything.

[Eviljames]

I agree with Aelryinth on this. Never let specific rules over rule a fun idea. I'd talk with your Dm and see if your mug can be enchanted or if you need to buy a new one for it or if you can get a masterwork transformation on it. (likely paying the 300gp for it not the 50) The exact specific could be debated all day here but the only important thing is what you and your DM decide.

[Imbicatus]

Chess Pwn wrote:

There is no "purpose" of an item. It does what it says. It says it can have weapon abilities that could be applied to US. Vorpal requires slashing which an US is not. Thus Vorpal can't be on a AoMF. If it said it could have weapon abilities that applies to US or any NA then you'd be correct that you could have vorpal since there are NA that do slashing. But that's not what it says.

Actually, it doesn't mention unarmed strikes at all. It mentions unarmed attacks, which an unarmed strike is one subset of.

Unarmed Attacks include Unarmed Strikes, Gauntlets, touch spells, and Natural Weapons.

Combat wrote:

"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).

[Chess Pwn]

Baval wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

A vorpal weapon must be a slashing melee weapon.

Actually its closer to

General Rule: You can walk on two legs
Specific ability X: You get a +1 to acrobatics while walking on your hands
Specific Item Y: Your peg leg gives you +3 to dance checks

And im saying you can walk with a peg leg and a real leg, and youre arguing "it specifically says you need TWO legs"

or worse "Just because you have a stick attached to your stump doesnt make it a peg leg unless it was specifically designed to be a peg leg, so no walking"

no it's not. It's saying that a Vorpal weapon MUST be a slashing weapon.

Then transmutative says if you switch to a weapon type that doesn't work for an ability the weapon has the ability is dormant.
AoMF says that it can have weapon abilities that apply to US.

Vorpal weapon MUST be a slashing
example: you must use two legs to walk.

You're saying that since transmutative has the special line telling you how to handle things that are normally impossible to have/do that everything can do that exception.
Example: walking with one leg is allowed -> everyone can walk with one leg.
Example 2:Your peg leg gives you +3 to dance checks and allows you to walk with just one leg without the italicized you'd still need 2 legs to walk and carrying a peg leg would give you the bonuses to dance.

Then AoMF says, Even though this isn't a weapon it can have weapon abilities that would work for an US. You take this and say, see, this item that isn't a weapon can have weapon abilities, thus any item can have weapon abilities it doesn't qualify for.
Example: This lets you walk with your hands Normally you can't walk with hands and need two legs to walk.
Example 2:You get a +1 to acrobatics while walking on your hands. This would do nothing until you gained the ability to walk with hands since the general rule is you need two legs and this doesn't grant you that override.

[Baval]

Youre really hung on this vorpal example.

[Chess Pwn]

Imbicatus wrote:

Actually, it doesn't mention unarmed strikes at all. It mentions unarmed attacks, which an unarmed strike is one subset of.

Unarmed Attacks include Unarmed Strikes, Gauntlets, touch spells, and Natural Weapons.

Combat wrote:

"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).

Very nice, I cede to your argument, it does seem to lump NA under unarmed attacks because of that line.

I had remembered that Unarmed Attacks and Natural Attacks had their own section and that UA said "Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon" and had sections Unarmed Strike Damage and Dealing Lethal Damage which are all about US.

I must remember this for next time. NA are unarmed attacks. Hmm... wonder where I can exploit this.

[Chess Pwn]

Baval wrote:

Also youre hanging on Vorpal so hard when this argument still works with Flaming. You can enchant the Amulet with Flaming. An Amulet is not a weapon, Flaming is a weapon enchantment. Therefore you can weapon enchant anything.

General rule: you can only enhance weapons.

An item that isn't a weapon THAT HAS SPECIFIC WORDING ALLOWING IT TO HAVE WEAPON ENHANCEMENTS exists.
Therefore there is no general rule. The spelling out that this specific non-weapon item can have weapon abilities proves that everything can have weapon abilities.

Similar argument:

General rule: only fighters qualify for fighter feats.
A magus can count as a fighter for feats.
Therefore there is no general rule. Everyone can take fighter feats!

[Baval]

Chess Pwn wrote:

Baval wrote:

Also youre hanging on Vorpal so hard when this argument still works with Flaming. You can enchant the Amulet with Flaming. An Amulet is not a weapon, Flaming is a weapon enchantment. Therefore you can weapon enchant anything.

General rule: you can only enhance weapons.

An item that isn't a weapon THAT HAS SPECIFIC WORDING ALLOWING IT TO HAVE WEAPON ENHANCEMENTS exists.
Therefore there is no general rule. The spelling out that this specific non-weapon item can have weapon abilities proves that everything can have weapon abilities.

Similar argument:

General rule: only fighters qualify for fighter feats.
A magus can count as a fighter for feats.
Therefore there is no general rule. Everyone can take fighter feats!

With the caveat youre leaving out of course being that Craft Magic Arms and Armor says the weapon you want to enchant has to be a masterwork ITEM, while the fighter feats specifically say only fighter. But sure, why not.

Craft Magic Arms and Armor wrote:

The weapon, armor, or shield to be enhanced must be a masterwork item that you provide. Its cost is not included in the above cost.

[Harleequin]

Seems perfectly legit to me!

[James Risner]

Baval wrote:

With the caveat youre leaving out of course being that Craft Magic Arms and Armor says the weapon you want to enchant has to be a masterwork ITEM

ITEM means the same type of item respectively.

If you are making a weapon, the masterwork item needs to be a masterwork weapon and 300 gp paid.

If you are making an armor, the masterwork item needs to be a masterwork armor and 150 gp paid.

[Baval]

James Risner wrote:

Baval wrote:

With the caveat youre leaving out of course being that Craft Magic Arms and Armor says the weapon you want to enchant has to be a masterwork ITEM

ITEM means the same type of item respectively.

If you are making a weapon, the masterwork item needs to be a masterwork weapon and 300 gp paid.

If you are making an armor, the masterwork item needs to be a masterwork armor and 150 gp paid.

And youre free to interpret it that way if you so choose, but thats silly.

Im going to play the way thats fun and doesn't enforce a reading of the rules that isnt written and isnt fun for no reason.

PS: any item is a weapon when its an improvised weapon.

[James Risner]

Baval wrote:

And youre free to interpret it that way if you so choose, but thats silly.

+1

I'm 100% for you doing that.

I'm even for you doing so and calling it RAW, your interpretation.

I'm just not in favor of you saying that is the only RAW.

Plus I'm not entirely certain we are not mostly in agreement anyway. My only point and the only thing I've been saying this entire thread, is that you can't use effects that improve your "improvised weapons" once you made your mug a +1 mug of flaming. Because it's now a weapon and no longer improvised weapon.

[Baval]

James Risner wrote:

Baval wrote:

And youre free to interpret it that way if you so choose, but thats silly.

+1

I'm 100% for you doing that.

I'm even for you doing so and calling it RAW, your interpretation.

I'm just not in favor of you saying that is the only RAW.

Plus I'm not entirely certain we are not mostly in agreement anyway. My only point and the only thing I've been saying this entire thread, is that you can't use effects that improve your "improvised weapons" once you made your mug a +1 mug of flaming. Because it's now a weapon and no longer improvised weapon.

no we are still in disagreement on that, though it is true that what weve been arguing about for a while now is not that and were apparently in agreement on what weve been arguing about.

In that case my answer is simple and I already said it, the definition of an improvised weapon is "was not crafted to be a weapon" according to the improvised weapon rules. What we apparently disagree on is if you have to specifically craft the mug as a masterwork mug-weapon or if you can make it just a masterwork mug.

Enchanting isnt crafting (admittedly debatable, since the feats are called crafting but you dont need any craft skills for the actual enchanting), so adding enchantments to a mug doesnt change that it wasnt "crafted" as a weapon.

Edit: Also youre mixing up RAW and RAI. You cant interpret RAW since its whats actually written, and whats actually written is the word item. What may be intended is that it be the same type of item as the enchantment, or that it can be any item that could feasibly use or even just hold that magic. Thats RAI, or Rules As Intended.

[James Risner]

Baval wrote:

Edit: Also youre mixing up RAW and RAI. You cant interpret RAW since its whats actually written

No you are.

There is no "one true RAW".

I'm fine with you believing your interpretation is RAW. I don't agree with it and I won't accept it at a table.

I'm also fine with a +1 masterwork mug, if you paid 300 gp for the masterwork part instead of 50 gp.

I'm just not fine with you adding +1 trait bonus on improvised weapons to that +1 masterwork mug attack.

[Imbicatus]

James Risner wrote:

Baval wrote:

Edit: Also youre mixing up RAW and RAI. You cant interpret RAW since its whats actually written

No you are.

There is no "one true RAW".

I'm fine with you believing your interpretation is RAW. I don't agree with it and I won't accept it at a table.

I'm also fine with a +1 masterwork mug, if you paid 300 gp for the masterwork part instead of 50 gp.

I'm just not fine with you adding +1 trait bonus on improvised weapons to that +1 masterwork mug attack.

Saying there is no "one true RAW" is like saying "There is no spoon".

While it is a useful philosophical concept, saying "There is no spoon" doesn't change the fact that a utensil-shaped hunk of metal is in your hand is not going to bend unless you break the rules of reality.

Saying there is no "one true RAW" doesn't mean that the rules don't say what they say. It's used as a justification to make a ruling that goes against the rules as they are written to break the rules of the game.

And that's fine, and something every GM does. But that doesn't make your house-rules the rules that are written in the book.

[Baval]

James Risner wrote:

Baval wrote:

Edit: Also youre mixing up RAW and RAI. You cant interpret RAW since its whats actually written

No you are.

There is no "one true RAW".

I'm fine with you believing your interpretation is RAW. I don't agree with it and I won't accept it at a table.

I'm also fine with a +1 masterwork mug, if you paid 300 gp for the masterwork part instead of 50 gp.

I'm just not fine with you adding +1 trait bonus on improvised weapons to that +1 masterwork mug attack.

First off, Imbicatus already addressed this, but yes there is a "one true raw". Its rules as written, it is the rule that is actually written. Any variance from what is strictly written is RAI. If theres no true RAW then theres no rulebook.

Ditto what he said about house rules.

On to my masterwork mug. It gives +2 to profession: speed drinking, not +1 to hit, its a masterwork mug not a masterwork weapon. Why do i have to pay 300 gold for that?

[James Risner]

Imbicatus wrote:

Saying there is no "one true RAW"

But that doesn't make your house-rules the rules that are written in the book.

Actually it is to prevent someone coming to the table with Strong Jaw and Improved Natural Attack pre-FAQ asserting that they stack and the GM saying "not by my reading of the RAW".

Pre-FAQ there was no one true RAW. The GM couldn't say "you have a house rule" and the player couldn't say "The GM is house ruling or rule 0-ing me!".

Neither could prove they were right, because neither accepted the other's version of the rules as written.

If you don't understand this, you should. You'd have more fun at the game and less strife.

[Baval]

James Risner wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Saying there is no "one true RAW"

But that doesn't make your house-rules the rules that are written in the book.

Actually it is to prevent someone coming to the table with Strong Jaw and Improved Natural Attack pre-FAQ asserting that they stack and the GM saying "not by my reading of the RAW".

Pre-FAQ there was no one true RAW. The GM couldn't say "you have a house rule" and the player couldn't say "The GM is house ruling or rule 0-ing me!".

Neither could prove they were right, because neither accepted the other's version of the rules as written.

If you don't understand this, you should. You'd have more fun at the game and less strife.

Thats RAI, not RAW.

Honestly I dont understand why you dont understand this. You can NOT change whats written. Its always the same. Paizo can, you cannot. Thats RAW

You CAN change how you interpret whats written. Thats RAI.'

If the word "interpret" needs to be used to describe what youre saying, its RAI. If it is in any way an opinion, its RAI. If you are literally reading the words printed on the page, its RAW.

[Imbicatus]

James Risner wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Saying there is no "one true RAW"

But that doesn't make your house-rules the rules that are written in the book.

Actually it is to prevent someone coming to the table with Strong Jaw and Improved Natural Attack pre-FAQ asserting that they stack and the GM saying "not by my reading of the RAW".

Pre-FAQ there was no one true RAW. The GM couldn't say "you have a house rule" and the player couldn't say "The GM is house ruling or rule 0-ing me!".

Neither could prove they were right, because neither accepted the other's version of the rules as written.

If you don't understand this, you should. You'd have more fun at the game and less strife.

I understand this, and agree. I welcome FAQs to clarify things for PFS, and while I may disagree with a FAQ, I include those as RAW.

But absent a FAQ or errata, the rules in the book are the rules that are written.

[Baval]

Let me ask you this, if we allow your interpretation that RAW is "how each player reads what is written", then what is RAI?

If interpreting the rules is Rules as Written, AKA what is written, then what is Rules as Intended, AKA what you think is actually intended by whats written?

Also, RAW those two abilities didnt stack before the FAQ. They both increase damage based on "the size the creature actually is". Neither physically increases size.

[James Risner]

Imbicatus wrote:

But absent a FAQ or errata, the rules in the book are the rules that are written.

What you seem to fail to accept or admit, is the rules as written may have different interpretations based on the reader's different life experiences.

So you can't say one is RAW and the other is a house rule unless you have a FAQ backing you up.

We can debate the meaning of RAW, but on these forums it comes down to the fact there is no one true RAW. One person doesn't get to dictate the interpretation of a passage just because he thinks he is right.

Especially when others strongly disagree.

[CBDunkerson]

RAW - Rules as Written, the actual words on the page... which tell us nothing until interpreted.
RAR - Rules as Read, any given person's interpretation of the RAW.
RAI - Rules as Intended, how the developers intended the rules to work. Often unknown.
RAA - Rules as Applied, how the GM is actually using the rules. May or may not be consistent with the RAW, GM's RAR, or RAI.

Thus, there IS 'one true RAW'. It is just meaningless by itself.

[Chess Pwn]

Baval wrote:

Thats RAI, not RAW.

Honestly I dont understand why you dont understand this. You can NOT change whats written. Its always the same. Paizo can, you cannot. Thats RAW

You CAN change how you interpret whats written. Thats RAI.'

If the word "interpret" needs to be used to describe what youre saying, its RAI. If it is in any way an opinion, its RAI. If you are literally reading the words printed on the page, its RAW.

It goes like this.

"This lady is blue."

This can mean the lady is sad.
This can mean the lady's skin is the color blue.
This can mean that the mysterious "blue" you've met is actually this lady. (think vigilante)
This can mean the lady's name is blue.

all of these Rules as Written. You cannot change what is written. It's always the same. You are literally reading "This lady is blue". But someone saying that it means the lady is sad arguing against someone saying it means the lady's skin is blue because they have a +2 hate the color blue bow. Both argue that they are RAW, and they are. The words literally mean the 4 examples listed.

[James Risner]

Chess Pwn wrote:

It goes like this.

"This lady is blue."

This can mean the lady is sad.
This can mean the lady's skin is the color blue.
This can mean that the mysterious "blue" you've met is actually this lady. (think vigilante)
This can mean the lady's name is blue

Brilliantly bright and blue!

+1

Love that post!

[Baval]

James Risner wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

It goes like this.

"This lady is blue."

This can mean the lady is sad.
This can mean the lady's skin is the color blue.
This can mean that the mysterious "blue" you've met is actually this lady. (think vigilante)
This can mean the lady's name is blue

Brilliantly bright and blue!

+1

Love that post!

Except not. Because what RAW is is "the lady is blue" and without further context clues we literally have to interpret everything else. This is whats known as "Bad RAW"

We can argue all day what they meant, and thats called arguing over "RAI", or what they intended by the sentence. But the RAW doesnt say any of it. It only says she is blue.

James Risner wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

But absent a FAQ or errata, the rules in the book are the rules that are written.

What you seem to fail to accept or admit, is the rules as written may have different interpretations based on the reader's different life experiences.

So you can't say one is RAW and the other is a house rule unless you have a FAQ backing you up.

We can debate the meaning of RAW, but on these forums it comes down to the fact there is no one true RAW. One person doesn't get to dictate the interpretation of a passage just because he thinks he is right.

Especially when others strongly disagree.

I already told you, if you use the word "interpret" you are discussing what you believe to be intent, and that is literally what RAI stands for. RAW is STRICTLY whats written, with 0 extrapolation.

Let me put it another way.

You are currently arguing the RAI of the phrase RAW. And I dont mean the figurative use of the word literally, it LITERALLY means that. The RAI of Rules as Written is RULES. AS. WRITTEN. Thats what it says, in plain text.

What you are arguing is that "written" can be taken as "how the person interprets whats written, such as in the case of metaphors" You are arguing the intent of the word written.

Hence, Rules as Intended.

You cannot change the words Rules as Written because thats whats written. Period.

[Baval]

Chess Pwn wrote:

Baval wrote:

Thats RAI, not RAW.

Honestly I dont understand why you dont understand this. You can NOT change whats written. Its always the same. Paizo can, you cannot. Thats RAW

You CAN change how you interpret whats written. Thats RAI.'

If the word "interpret" needs to be used to describe what youre saying, its RAI. If it is in any way an opinion, its RAI. If you are literally reading the words printed on the page, its RAW.

It goes like this.

"This lady is blue."

This can mean the lady is sad.
This can mean the lady's skin is the color blue.
This can mean that the mysterious "blue" you've met is actually this lady. (think vigilante)
This can mean the lady's name is blue.

all of these Rules as Written. You cannot change what is written. It's always the same. You are literally reading "This lady is blue". But someone saying that it means the lady is sad arguing against someone saying it means the lady's skin is blue because they have a +2 hate the color blue bow. Both argue that they are RAW, and they are. The words literally mean the 4 examples listed.

Now to address you more closely, because you said the biggest possible contradiction.

You said whats written is:

The lady is blue

You said we can read that to mean:
A bunch of things

You said all of those are written. The fact is none of it is written. You can read it as being the intent of what IS written, but as for being PHYSICALLY written, which is what RAW is, none of it is.

You also use the word literally right once and then wrong once. "The lady is blue" is what is literally written, as in it is actually what is written. "The lady is sad" may be what is figuratively written, but is not what is literally written. Unless the lady does actually turn the color blue when she is sad.

[James Risner]

Baval wrote:

RAW is STRICTLY whats written, with 0 extrapolation.

That line of thinking isn't productive, helpful, wanted, or desired by the major of players, GM, and developers.

The whole game is written more in conversational tone than a legal book, because legal books don't sell. But approachable books do.

So the whole system is built on a foundation of BAD RAW as you say.

[Baval]

James Risner wrote:

Baval wrote:

RAW is STRICTLY whats written, with 0 extrapolation.

That line of thinking isn't productive, helpful, wanted, or desired by the major of players, GM, and developers.

The whole game is written more in conversational tone than a legal book, because legal books don't sell. But approachable books do.

So the whole system is built on a foundation of BAD RAW as you say.

Yes. And that is why we have RAI discussions. To try and take poorly WRITTEN rules and make them make sense.

That is why we have two terms. For two different things.

Do you finally understand?

[CBDunkerson]

Baval wrote:

You cannot change the words Rules as Written because thats whats written. Period.

Well, there's always errata. :]

In any case, without interpretation the written text is of no value. Meaningless squiggles. RAW is the starting point of any effort to understand the rules. Never the end.

PS: James & Baval - Apart from semantics, you two actually appear to agree. Stop arguing about how right you both are. :]

[Chess Pwn]

Baval wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

Baval wrote:

Thats RAI, not RAW.

Honestly I dont understand why you dont understand this. You can NOT change whats written. Its always the same. Paizo can, you cannot. Thats RAW

You CAN change how you interpret whats written. Thats RAI.'

If the word "interpret" needs to be used to describe what youre saying, its RAI. If it is in any way an opinion, its RAI. If you are literally reading the words printed on the page, its RAW.

It goes like this.

"This lady is blue."

This can mean the lady is sad.
This can mean the lady's skin is the color blue.
This can mean that the mysterious "blue" you've met is actually this lady. (think vigilante)
This can mean the lady's name is blue.

all of these Rules as Written. You cannot change what is written. It's always the same. You are literally reading "This lady is blue". But someone saying that it means the lady is sad arguing against someone saying it means the lady's skin is blue because they have a +2 hate the color blue bow. Both argue that they are RAW, and they are. The words literally mean the 4 examples listed.

Now to address you more closely, because you said the biggest possible contradiction.

You said whats written is:

The lady is blue

You said we can read that to mean:
A bunch of things

You said all of those are written. The fact is none of it is written. You can read it as being the intent of what IS written, but as for being PHYSICALLY written, which is what RAW is, none of it is.

You also use the word literally right once and then wrong once. "The lady is blue" is what is literally written, as in it is actually what is written. "The lady is sad" may be what is figuratively written, but is not what is literally written. Unless the lady does actually turn the color blue when she is sad.

So what is the RAW rule? Does my +2 hate the color blue bow do extra damage against her by RAW?

[Baval]

Yes

[Chess Pwn]

Baval wrote:

Yes

Why?

[James Risner]

CBDunkerson wrote:

PS: James & Baval - Apart from semantics, you two actually appear to agree. Stop arguing about how right you both are. :]

Clearly not agreeing:

Chess Pwn wrote:

Does my +2 hate the color blue bow do extra damage against her by RAW?

Baval wrote:

Yes

If we agreed he'd say "by some interpretations of RAW but not all interpretations of RAW".

[JustABill]

Mjolbeard89 wrote:

Aelryinth wrote:

make sure you make it out of something useful!

Adamantine Mug: Useful in a fight, but makes the ale taste a bit off... XD

Is that for hard liquor?

[SlimGauge]

It's for that special Dwarven stout that will eat through lesser mugs.